Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim

Topline

After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas claimed last week that he did not need to report a series of lavish gifts from the real estate magnate Harlan Crow in part because Crow did not have business before the court, a new report from Bloomberg Monday revealed the Supreme Court did in fact review at least one matter involving a Crow-linked firm—raising questions about whether Thomas should have recused himself from the case.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Key Facts

In 2004, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm that claimed a company that was part of Crow’s real estate portfolio allowed other architects to use its copyrighted drawings, according to Bloomberg.

The architecture firm, Womack+Hampton Architects LLC, was seeking damages of $25 million from Trammell Crow Residential Co., a company named after Harlan Crow’s father that was part-owned by Crow Holdings at the time.

Harlan Crow was Crow Holdings’ chief executive officer and chair of its board in 2004, though he stepped down as CEO in 2017.

Thomas previously claimed that he did not have to disclose a series of flights on Harlan Crow’s private jet, travel on his super-yacht or stays at his properties, among other gifts, in part, because Crow and his wife are “close personal friends, who did not have business before the court.”

Crow’s office told Bloomberg Trammell Crow Residential operated “completely independently of Crow Holdings with a separate management team and its own independent operations” in 2004 and that neither the company nor Harlan Crow “had knowledge or involvement in the case.”

Chief Critic

New York University School of Law judicial ethics expert Stephen Gillers told Bloomberg that Thomas’ relationship with Harlan Crow constituted grounds for him to recuse himself from the 2004 case, adding that Thomas should have been “hypervigilant to the prospect of a Crow interest showing up on the Court’s docket.” Judges have discretion in deciding when they should step aside from a case due to a conflict, such as when they have a relative who could financially benefit from decisions, Bloomberg reported.

Contra

Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings, according to Bloomberg, raising the possibility that Thomas may not have recognized their connection to Harland Crow, Arthur Hellman, a judicial ethics expert at University of Pittsburgh School of Law, told the outlet.

Key Background

Thomas, a conservative justice appointed to the court in 1991, has faced calls for his resignation from Democrats, who have also called on Chief Justice John Roberts to tighten ethics protocols following a ProPublica report about Thomas’ relationship with the GOP mega donor. The outlet revealed earlier this month that Thomas has repeatedly used Crow’s private jet for travel and vacationed with him on his superyacht and at his private properties dozens of times for more than two decades. The outlet subsequently reported that Crow purchased three Savannah real estate properties owned by Thomas and his relatives, including his childhood home. Thomas did not disclose the real estate deals or any of the trips with Crow on his financial disclosure statements, as required when justices receive gifts valued at more than $415. Thomas defended himself against the reports and said he sought guidance from . . . colleagues and others in the judiciary” who instructed him that he did not have to report the trips on his financial disclosure statements because they constituted “personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court.” Thomas also said he would update his financial disclosures to include information about the real estate deals with Crow, calling the omission an “oversight,” CNN reported, citing a source close to Thomas.

Tangent

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Wisc.) asked Crow to give a full accounting of the gifts he has given to Thomas as part of a review of whether the deals violated federal tax laws that require taxpayers to disclose gifts over a certain amount. Wyden, in a letter to Crow on Monday, said “the cost of the use of your private jet and fully crewed superyacht by Justice Thomas would likely be well in excess of the annual gift tax exclusion (between $13,000 per recipient in 2011 and $17,000 per recipient in 2023.”